President Trump’s decision to nominate a slate of solidly conservative judges to the Ninth Circuit vacancies is another demonstration of Trump’s acumen in recognizing the nexus between politics, policy and the judiciary and the Senate is about to change its rules to end the Democrat obstruction that has stalled many of Trump's best conservative nominees.

Our hopes and prayers for her health aside – and many conservatives are offering them even as they would love her to retire – my money is still on a 2019 fight to replace her. While my heart belongs to Judge Don Willett (who swore me into the Texas Bar), my money is on Amy Coney Barrett. She’s got some huge assets that make her the likely pick, starting with the “her” part. Soon-to-be Justice Barrett will not just make a great jurist. She’ll help pave the way for Donald Trump’s re-election by reminding us just what kind of people the Democrats are.

By Richard A. Viguerie, CHQ ChairmanWith President Trump meeting with key Senators to discuss his first Supreme Court nomination it is vital for conservatives to contact the White House and to respectfully urge President Trump to avoid nominating Judge William Pryor to the Supreme Court.

What was a trickle of cultural conservatives voicing concern about Judge Pryor has begun to build into a steady stream of opposition. “Pryor may be 90 percent good on his decisions, but that is not good enough,” said Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association. “We need someone who will be just like Scalia, 100 percent, in terms of their judicial philosophy."

By Richard A. Viguerie, CHQ ChairmanWe know where Judge Pryor stands, and while he has a good record on some of our issues, his willingness to create new protected classes and endow them with judicially created rights unmoored to legislation or the plain language of the Constitution and his failure to protect religious liberty clearly disqualifies him from consideration as a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia.

How can liberals credibly uphold the pretense that Supreme Court decisions, where the left is the majority, represent judgments based on the Constitution, when Ginsburg, the leading leftist, has revealed herself to be a rabid partisan who can’t wait to use her judicial power to impose her ideology upon the United States?

Liberals are wringing their hands about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's highly unusual political comments, in which she all but openly called on voters to defeat Donald Trump. While the criticism is appropriate, the vituperation of it is nonetheless amusing. It's as though the New York Times' editors suddenly reached the age where they discovered that their parents don't know everything. The paper doesn't like admitting that its favorite justice is kind of a political hack who has done quite a bit to politicize the court on which she sits.

The Heller and McDonald cases which finally codified the Second Amendment as in individual right were passed on a knife edge, and that knife is about to turn around and slash in the other direction if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton – or John Kasich – are allowed to fill not only this seat on the court but the likely three or four to follow.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion mag, reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just reiterated her plan to stay on the bench. “We’re going to have SCOTUS appointments,” Obama said to motivate donors during a DSCC fundraiser. There are 4 SCOTUS justices over the age of 70.